Thank you for sharing the Mule credits, Macpherson.It seems that there is some pretty good music in this one.Especially country music.Like AKA23, I noticed that Clint wasn’t mentioned as a producer.The Mule is dedicated to Pierre and Richard.I immediately recognized Pierre Rissient, who supported Clint since The Beguiled and became a good friend.Pierre Rissient passed away recently.Unfortunately, I don’t know who was Richard.I was trying to find out and it’s not obvious to me.If someone knew who was Richard, could you tell us please ?

Clint dedicated Unforgiven to his mentors; Sergio Leone and Don Siegel. Do you really think he actually considers dedicating a "bad" movie to Richard and Pierre, two of his best friends?

Clint dedicated Unforgiven to his mentors; Sergio Leone and Don Siegel. Do you really think he actually considers dedicating a "bad" movie to Richard and Pierre, two of his best friends?

Honestly, I don't. Clint at least thinks the movie is good. Whether it will be widely embraced by others, I don't know, we will find out soon. These were my thoughts. I initially posted them on Awards Watch seeking to spur a discussion, but they were incredibly rude, insulting, and disrespectful, even though I always tried to be respectful of them, as you will see below. Among other lovely labels, they said I was "mentally unbalanced," "a studio plant" and "Scott Eastwood with too much time on my hands. I actually thought this was a pretty sophisticated analysis, which is what I thought the members of a movie and Oscars forum would be interested in. What do you guys think? Do you agree with me here?

Quote

I actually think this is a perceptive comment and that this is the most likely scenario. The movie is probably good, which is why Warners hired extra post-production crew to get it ready to be released, and initially said they were wowed by it. But, after it was finished and they began to screen it, Warners likely got some unexpected feedback that the portrayal of the Hispanic characters might be interpreted as offensive to some, and they don't want a bunch of reviews calling the film offensive to depress the box office numbers. So, that's why they aren't screening it for critics. The same could be said about "Gran Torino," but that was made 10 years ago and a lot has changed in our society since that time.

I think Warners concerns may be a reflection of the times that we live in. Due to the political climate, many liberal people are becoming increasingly concerned about racial/ethnic stereotypes and the marginalization of minorities and/or disadvantaged groups. The Oscars so white controversy (Sasha Stone's AD label) have also caused the Academy to diversify their membership by inviting a lot more minorities/women who are much younger to join the Academy. The new Academy members are quite concerned about these issues, and want to see more diverse winners that reflect the socio-political values that they think we should be standing for in this country. It is no longer about the quality of the movie. It is also about the message the movie is sending.

You can see this influence in the Academy's recent choices for Best Picture winners, such as "The Shape of Water" and "Moonlight." "The Shape of Water" was an allegory for female sexual liberation (signified by all those weird scenes of the main character masturbating in the bathtub), and providing a voice for people that often feel not heard, not understood or not accepted in our modern society (signified by the mute main character, the love story between the main character and the creature, and the inclusion of Richard Jenkins as a gay man). It is also a socio-political commentary on the Trump administration (signified by the conservative villain who is a tailor made prototype for the many people's views that Trump supporters are racist and deplorable.

In another year, "The Post" may have won the Best Picture Oscar. It's the type of traditional, classic Oscar movie that the Academy has rewarded over and over again throughout it's history. "La La Land" also would have won over "Moonlight" as well. Oscar voters embrace love stories to Hollywood, and that's what "La La Land" was (see "The Artist" and "Argo," which were about the entertainment industry/Hollywood), and both won just a few years ago. While not about Hollywood, also see "Spotlight," which is more of a classic Oscar movie. But, it also contained the social message that Hollywood wanted to send about priests covering up sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

I think that these concerns and the more diverse membership will likely be enough to prevent Eastwood from being nominated for Best Actor, and from "The Mule" being nominated for any Oscar, and from critics screening it in advance, but neither, in and of themselves, prove "The Mule" is a terrible movie. To believe that, you also have to believe that the people that said Warners hired extra post production crew lied, that Warners lied to the public that they were initially wowed by the film, that they dated it for December 14th anyway, that A-list actors would all agree to be in "The Mule" even though the script was terrible, and that Clint would agree to release two horrible movies within the same calendar year. To believe that none of the positive things actually happened, even though they were reported by multiple sources, and that all of the negative speculation is accurate, is a bridge too far for me.

I'm waiting to see the film before speculating whether the film will get any award nominations. To start talking about them while the film is still shooting or before its released is just setting yourself up for disappointment. I saw this trend with the last two films Clint has appeared in. People on this board got into a frenzy with Gran Torino and Trouble With A Curve while the films were still shooting about winning awards and were gutted when the films got nothing.

The film doesn't open here till the end of January. It's like the old days when I had to wait while everyone on the board was talking about the film. The last few have been released the same week as the USA. I even got to see Sully first, being a day ahead with the time difference.

Honestly, I don't. Clint at least thinks the movie is good. Whether it will be widely embraced by others, I don't know, we will find out soon. These were my thoughts. I initially posted them on Awards Watch seeking to spur a discussion, but they were incredibly rude, insulting, and disrespectful, even though I always tried to be respectful of them, as you will see below. Among other lovely labels, they said I was "mentally unbalanced," "a studio plant" and "Scott Eastwood with too much time on my hands. I actually thought this was a pretty sophisticated analysis, which is what I thought the members of a movie and Oscars forum would be interested in. What do you guys think? Do you agree with me here?

I'm waiting to see the film before speculating whether the film will get any award nominations. To start talking about them while the film is still shooting or before its released is just setting yourself up for disappointment. I saw this trend with the last two films Clint has appeared in. People on this board got into a frenzy with Gran Torino and Trouble With A Curve while the films were still shooting about winning awards and were gutted when the films got nothing.

The film doesn't open here till the end of January. It's like the old days when I had to wait while everyone on the board was talking about the film. The last few have been released the same week as the USA. I even got to see Sully first, being a day ahead with the time difference.

SK, I agree with you, and you are also right about "Gran Torino" and "Trouble with the Curve." I wasn't talking about the parts that speculated about whether the film will receive award nominations, but about the parts where I analyzed how the Academy membership has changed and how that, and what is currently happening in the country/world, has motivated them to choose different types of movies to win/nominate and that these choices reflect the values that they want to promote and not just the quality of the films themselves.

Honestly, I don't. Clint at least thinks the movie is good. Whether it will be widely embraced by others, I don't know, we will find out soon. These were my thoughts. I initially posted them on Awards Watch seeking to spur a discussion, but they were incredibly rude, insulting, and disrespectful, even though I always tried to be respectful of them, as you will see below. Among other lovely labels, they said I was "mentally unbalanced," "a studio plant" and "Scott Eastwood with too much time on my hands. I actually thought this was a pretty sophisticated analysis, which is what I thought the members of a movie and Oscars forum would be interested in. What do you guys think? Do you agree with me here?

I think that your argument is solid enough, AKA23. So, I agree with you. I think that The Mule getting Oscars nominations is uncertain at this point.We have to wait the first critics’ reactions, the nominations from the Screen Actor Guild and the Director Guild of America and the box office results.Gran Torino got zero Oscar nomination, in spite of critical and financial success. Then, who knows ?

SK, I agree with you, and you are also right about "Gran Torino" and "Trouble with the Curve." I wasn't talking about the parts that speculated about whether the film will receive award nominations, but about the parts where I analyzed how the Academy membership has changed and how that, and what is currently happening in the country/world, has motivated them to choose different types of movies to win/nominate and that these choices reflect the values that they want to promote and not just the quality of the films themselves.

Oscars were created to promote Hollywood industry.Maybe the Oscars have always been political. More or less.Nowadays, that seems obvious. The world has changed, America has changed and Hollywood has changed as well.So, artistic quality is not the only criterion to select the Oscars winners.Again, I agree with you, AKA23.

Thank you very much, Honkytonkman ! Thanks for sharing this video.I’m really happy for you ! You were lucky and happy that day !I saw The Good, The Bad and The Ugly for the first time, 29 years ago.Since then I admire Clint Eastwood movies. So, I can imagine what that represented to you. Meeting Clint, I mean.The book on Clint by François Guérif is actually the third one I have read. I was 14 or 15 years old.The first one is the book by Michèle Weinberger and the second one is the book by Noël Simsolo, a great book too.The last extended edition of François Guérif’s book goes from Revenge of the Creature to A Perfect World.I doubt that there will be an updated edition, unfortunately.The last updated edition of Noël Simsolo’s book goes until Flags of Our Fathers.There won’t be an updated edition because Simsolo is no longer interested in cinema.

Thank you very much, Honkytonkman ! Thanks for sharing this video.I’m really happy for you ! You were lucky and happy that day !I saw The Good, The Bad and The Ugly for the first time, 29 years ago.Since then I admire Clint Eastwood movies. So, I can imagine what that represented to you. Meeting Clint, I mean.The book on Clint by François Guérif is actually the third one I have read. I was 14 or 15 years old.The first one is the book by Michèle Weinberger and the second one is the book by Noël Simsolo, a great book too.The last extended edition of François Guérif’s book goes from Revenge of the Creature to A Perfect World.I doubt that there will be an updated edition, unfortunately.The last updated edition of Noël Simsolo’s book goes until Flags of Our Fathers.

There won’t be an updated edition because Simsolo is no longer interested in cinema.

Clint dedicated Unforgiven to his mentors; Sergio Leone and Don Siegel. Do you really think he actually considers dedicating a "bad" movie to Richard and Pierre, two of his best friends?

If I'm not mistaken, Unforgiven is the ONLY other movie Clint dedicated to anyone, in that case to his two cinematic mentors. If he chose to dedicate this one to two people who were longtime followers and promoters of his career, I believe that says a LOT about how Clint, himself, views this film.

If I'm not mistaken, Unforgiven is the ONLY other movie Clint dedicated to anyone, in that case to his two cinematic mentors. If he chose to dedicate this one to two people who were longtime followers and promoters of his career, I believe that says a LOT about how Clint, himself, views this film.

Clint dedicated Flags of Our Fathers to Henry Bumstead, his production designer in many movies, and to Phyllis Huffman, who was his casting director for many years.

Sorry, I'm sure this must have been asked before but I was away from the board for a while and wouldn't know where to find the answer. Clint said Gran Torino would be the last movie in which he would act but after it, had Trouble with the Curve and now the Mule. What made him change his mind?

But, after it was finished and they began to screen it, Warners likely got some unexpected feedback that the portrayal of the Hispanic characters might be interpreted as offensive to some, and they don't want a bunch of reviews calling the film offensive to depress the box office numbers.

I think your take is as likely as any I've seen. If true, though, eliminating press screenings seems like a pretty lame approach. Critics will still see the movie opening day and likely post their reviews on Saturday, so at best you're getting the benefit of an opening weekend without controversy (and given social media, likely less). Further, Eastwood's recent hits (Gran Torino, American Sniper) have had long theatrical runs where a larger than normal percentage of the box office gross came post-opening weekend (though Sniper did admittedly have a big opening weekend) -- so how is WB going to cope with that?

If concerns about the Hispanic portrayal are really the issue, I wonder why WB didn't try to get in front of it, getting the likes of Michael Pena (parents born in Mexico), Andy Garcia (born in Cuba), Ignacio Serricchio (born in Argentina) and Arturo Sandoval (Cuban) on the press circuit a little, talking about the film.

As for the Oscars question, my guess is the WB doesn't have a clue how the film is going to land (much as they didn't with Torino and Sniper, which I believe took them by surprise), and they're taking a wait and see approach, which is particularly easy for them to do given A Star is Born's leading contender status. If The Mule opens to a warm response, I believe you'll see an awards push, and if not we won't.

[Edit: I thought when I originally wrote the above that the WB wasn't screening the film for critics until opening day, but now I'm seeing that it's screening today (Monday) in NY and L.A., which isn't unheard of and will allow plenty of time for reviews to hit. In the words of Kramer, "I take it all back, every word!"]

Sorry, I'm sure this must have been asked before but I was away from the board for a while and wouldn't know where to find the answer. Clint said Gran Torino would be the last movie in which he would act but after it, had Trouble with the Curve and now the Mule. What made him change his mind?

Aline, I don't know and I don't think he's ever said, but my guess would be he just found scripts he liked that had a leading part for a man of his age.